Heinrich v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an intervening criminal prosecution did not bar open-ended continuity because the fraudulent adoption scheme could have persisted indefinitely into the future but for the prosecution
• noting that Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements require a plaintiff who pleads fraud to identify the speaker of the statement
• finding that fraudulent misrepresentation claims must specify the “false statements and by whom they were made.”
• finding that a plaintiff failed to allege fraud with sufficient particularity because she “d[id] not include [in her affidavit] the date she received the allegedly fraudulent email from the defendants.”
• finding that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege wire fraud where her affidavit “does not include the date she received the allegedly fraudulent email from the defendants”
• finding that predicate acts of misrepresentation to prospective adoptive families were related because they were committed by the same participants, for similar purposes, with similar victims, using similar methods of commission

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).